News

Outside groups spent more money on campaigns for seats on state courts nationwide than ever before, an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice shows. At least one court seat was at stake in 27 states on Election Day. Special interest groups spent a record $19.4 million on television ads for judicial candidates, over half of all television spending in these races. The Republican State Leadership Committee spent the most of any group, putting $4 million into eight different races as part of its effort to elect more conservative justices. But incumbent judges had money in their corners too. “I think it can be misleading to just look at money going to challengers who lose and then concluding the money had no impact,” said Alicia Bannon, a senior counsel with the center. The Marshall Project looks at judicial elections in several key states.

Millions of dollars in campaign spending produced mixed results for the conservative and liberal groups seeking to sway state supreme courts around the country, the Associated Press reports. Sitting justices fought back big-dollar opposition in Kansas and Washington, although liberal-leaning groups gained influence on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Outside groups spent a record $16.4 million on television spots this election cycle, topping the $13.5 million spent during the 2012 campaign, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Total television spending, including ads by the candidates themselves, neared $33 million, just shy of the amount spent four years ago. ABC News has the story.

Special interest groups, many of which do not disclose their donors, have invested heavily in state Supreme Court races this election cycle, including pumping more than $1.2 million in outside spending into six states over the past two weeks, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. With three weeks to go to Election Day, the center estimates that television spending for judicial races has surpassed $25.6 million, with $11.3 million of that coming from outside groups. The center has data and early trends on races in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously yesterday that several restrictions on what Kentucky judicial candidates can say while running for office violate the First Amendment. The court struck down a clause that prohibits judicial candidates from campaigning as a member of a political party or organization, a clause that bans candidates from making speeches for or against a political organization or candidate, and a ban on misleading statements. Kentucky judges run in nonpartisan elections and are bound by the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. The ABA Journal looks at the decision.

The state Division of Elections reported today that 281,278 Tennesseans voted early for Thursday’s election – only about half the early vote reported in 2014 and below the 2012 early turnout as well. Early voting ended this past Saturday. The reported statewide total includes 178,915 persons voting in Republican primaries and 89,534 voting in Democratic primaries. In 2014, early voting numbers totaled 564,733 with 354,226 Republicans and 164,939 Democrats going to the polls before election day. Humphrey on the Hill suggests some reasons why numbers may be down.

On the eve of early voting in local judicial elections, a Shelby County judge says her campaign signs are being targeted. Thursday morning, 30th District Circuit Court Judge Valerie Smith said she discovered several of her campaign signs in locations all over town had been vandalized. Smith’s home surveillance cameras also captured two men stealing signs from her East Memphis home and the homes of several neighbors shortly after midnight Thursday. “As a judge or a judicial candidate, I would certainly hope that someone would be above that, but obviously someone has been targeting my signs,” Smith told WREG-TV.

In interviews with the New York Times and CNN this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president,” and that Trump “is a faker” and “he has no consistency about him." The comments have raised questions about the appropriateness of a justice commenting on a political candidate, with Trump even calling for her resignation. The ABA Journal looks at the legal ramifications, if any, of her comments.

Nearly one-third of all Tennessee judicial candidates facing voters in August have already signed the Tennessee Fair Judicial Campaign Code of Conduct. Candidates can still sign the code, a copy of which is available through the Tennessee Judicial Election Information Center. The code was first enacted by the Tennessee Bar Association in 2006 as a means to help preserve public faith in the integrity of the justice system. It has been signed by several hundred judicial candidates in elections since then.

With three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices and seven intermediate appellate judges facing retention elections, along with 15 trial judges and a number of local judges on the ballot in August, the TBA is renewing its effort to assure fair and impartial judicial elections by asking judges to subscribe to the Tennessee Fair Judicial Campaign Code of Conduct. In the 2014 election cycle, where all judges and judicial officers were on the ballot, more than 116 judges subscribed to the code. Letters to all known judges and judicial candidates on the ballot are being issued this week. Visit the TBA's 2016 Tennessee Judicial Election Information Center for more information.

With three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices and seven intermediate appellate judges facing retention elections, along with 15 trial judges and a number of local judges on the ballot in August, the TBA is renewing its effort to assure fair and impartial judicial elections by asking judges to subscribe to the Tennessee Fair Judicial Campaign Code of Conduct. In the 2014 election cycle, where all judges and judicial officers were on the ballot, more than 116 judges subscribed to the code. Letters to all known judges and judicial candidates on the ballot are being issued this week. Visit the TBA's 2016 Tennessee Judicial Election Information Center for more information.

The Leaf-Chronicle features an interview with Judge Jill Ayers, who was appointed by Gov. Bill Haslam in October to fill a newly created Circuit Court judgeship. “I have a lot going on right now. I was full-time practicing law, and I’m still winding down that practice and making sure I take care of my clients there and closing out their matters … It’s a busy time,” she said. Ayers has been a partner at the Batson Nolan law firm in Clarksville since 1997.

Responding to suggestions from the TBA and a committee of judges , the Tennessee Supreme Court today amended the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding judges and judicial candidates’ election campaign conduct. Among other changes, the rules now make it more clear that judges and judicial candidates are permitted to endorse other judges; explicitly allow judges to seek, accept or use endorsements from any person or organization; permit judges to speak on behalf of his or her candidacy through any medium, including but not limited to advertisements, websites, or other campaign literature; and, clarify the prohibition on judges simultaneously seeking judicial and non juridical office. The TBA made recommendations for four changes based upon the experience with the new rules during the 2014 election. As urged by the TBA, the Court did not change the standard for disqualification based on campaign contributions or support, and it turned back changes to the treatment of affiliation with organizations that practice invidious discrimination. Read the order here.

Special-interest groups accounted for a record-high 29 percent of total spending in state Supreme Court races in the 2013-14 election cycle, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. “As special-interest groups continue to pump money into judicial races, Americans are rightfully questioning whether campaign cash influences courtroom decisions,” said Alicia Bannon, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. The report also found that lawyers and lobbyists were the largest donors to Supreme Court candidates – collectively responsible for 63 percent of donations.

In a 5-4 decision today in Williams Yulee v. The Florida State Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on direct solicitation of campaign donations by judicial candidates. The case asked the court to consider a First Amendment challenge to a Florida rule that prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg cited a poll commissioned by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice noting that 87 percent of voters believe advertisements purchased by interest groups during judicial elections can have either “some” or “a great deal” of influence on an elected judge’s later decisions. "Today’s decision helps judges, by saving them from the compromising job of raising cash from people whose cases they will decide," Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg said. "And it helps the public, by reassuring them that they will not find themselves in court before a judge who has received a check directly from the opposing party in their case.” American Bar Association President William C. Hubbard praised the ruling, saying it "underscores the importance of an independent judiciary to the rule of law." SCOTUSBlog and ABA Journal have more.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said if she could overturn any of the decisions made by America’s highest court in the past 10 years, it would be the Citizens United ruling—the sweeping 2010 decision that expanded corporate personhood. “I think our system is being polluted by money,” Ginsburg said during a presentation at Georgetown University Law Center. She said she is optimistic that “sensible restrictions” on campaign financing will one day be in place, the Guardian reports.

Justice at Stake will host an educational webinar on Jan. 15 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time on the case of Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, which looks at whether states may place restrictions on how judges and judicial candidates raise money. The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 20. Register online for the presentation “Judging Under the Influence: Will the Supreme Court Protect Fair Courts?”

The ABA has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Florida judicial conduct rule that bars judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds. The issue in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar is whether the state ban violates the First Amendment, the ABA Journal reports. The ABA argues that the ban on personal solicitations is narrowly tailored to promote the state’s compelling interest in a fair and impartial judiciary free from corruption and the appearance of corruption. The case is scheduled for argument on Jan. 20, according to a press release from the group.

The TBA's roundup of election results and news coverage on races in each judicial district is now updated. For a number of counties, the roundup also includes details about elections for juvenile court and general sessions judges. Additional results and links to news stories will continue to be added as information becomes available.

Nine out of 10 lawyers recommend that Tennesseans vote to “retain” the three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices on the Aug. 7 ballot. That’s the result of a Tennessee Bar Association Candidate Evaluation Poll conducted over two weeks in early June. "We want to help the voting public make an informed decision in these retention elections by compiling the views of Tennessee lawyers and presenting them broadly,” TBA President Jonathan Steen of Jackson said. “These results provide a much better measure than partisan labels as to the issue of a judge’s capabilities."

The results of the Tennessee Bar Association's first-ever Tennessee Supreme Court Candidate Evaluation Poll will be released at a press availability on Friday at 11 a.m. EDT in Gatlinburg during the TBA Convention. Outgoing TBA President Cindy Wyrick and incoming President Jonathan Steen will be available to discuss the results. A special edition of TBA Today also will be sent to TBA members on Friday morning with the poll results. The TBA announced the poll last month as part of an effort to provide information to the voting public to help ensure a fair, impartial and accountable judicial election.

The Tennessee Bar Association has launched a Tennessee Supreme Court Candidate Evaluation Poll, which will remain open until June 9. For the first time in its history, the TBA is polling its members for their views on the three justices facing retention votes in the August General Election. For each of the three – Chief Justice Gary Wade, Justice Cornelia Clark and Justice Sharon Lee – TBA members are being asked to select one of four options: (1) highly recommend retention, (2) recommend retention, (3) do not recommend retention or (4) do not have an informed opinion at this time. The TBA is using the SurveyMonkey platform to conduct the survey, which ensures the secrecy of votes. If you have not yet received an email to participate, please check your spam folder for an email from SurveyMonkey.com. Results will be released in mid June.

The TBA is taking this unprecedented step because it believes that lawyers are uniquely qualified to provide an informed opinion as to whether a justice should be retained, and by providing the collective view of the organized bar, it can help Tennessee voters educate themselves about the election. The poll is one part of TBA’s efforts to help ensure that the 2014 judicial elections maintain a fair, impartial and accountable judiciary. Learn more about other efforts at the TBA’s Judicial Selection Information Center.

Spending by special interest groups continues to rise in judicial elections, accounting for 27 percent of all the money spent on the races in 2011 and 2012, according to a new report by a Justice at Stake partner organization. This is a sharp increase from the 16 percent seen in the 2003 and 2004 elections, which held the previous high in outside spending. The report has detailed information about judges who raised the most money and donors who gave the most, and it also identifies funding trends. As an example, the report says that during his campaign for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2012, Roy Moore raised more out-of-state money than any other appeals court judge running in the country. Moore’s campaign took in $265,440 — or 41 percent of his total campaign contributions — from donors in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Australia and Canada. Gavel Grab has more.

Close to 180 judges and judicial candidates have now agreed to a higher standard of campaign conduct by signing the Tennessee Fair Judicial Campaign Code of Conduct. In doing so, they agree not to comment during the campaign on legal issues that might come before them as a judge, and if elected, to conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner and recuse themselves from issues on which they already have announced how they would rule. To see who has signed the pledge, visit the 2014 Tennessee Judicial Selection Information Center. Candidates who have not signed but would like to, can also find a copy of the pledge there.

Judges vying for North Carolina’s State Supreme Court face difficult and expensive challenges on the campaign trail ever since the state did away with public financing for judicial candidates last year, Gavel Grab reports. Judicial candidates can’t make promises or use traditional campaign tactics when trying to define their candidacies, which leads to an "awkward world of judges stumping for votes and money." North Carolina Supreme Court justice Cheri Beasley says the $1.2 to $2 million her consultants say she needs to raise for her reelection bid is outrageous. “We want judges that are focusing on doing their jobs and not focusing on being politicians,” she said.